Belief in God doesnt require evidence to exist

Round 1

1 of 2

SatanLucy

Pro #1

Evidence definition:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evidence

facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true

Belief definition:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief

the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

As we see from definition of belief, no evidence is mentioned as necessary in the definition of belief. Likewise, in definition of evidence, it is not mentioned that evidence is necessary for belief. So by definitions, the topic is already proved in my favor, as definitions dont say evidence is required.

Obviously, things cannot require evidence in order to exist, because existence itself is not dependent on evidence. All things existed before evidence of them did. Sun existed before any human had evidence of it. So did universe. So did atoms.

to claim existence depends on evidence would be claiming evidence of existence of X comes before existence of X, which is impossible because evidence of existence of X requires X to exist before evidence of it does.

GreatfulGoy

Con #2

I would like to add a couple of definitions of belief to give more scope to what it is.

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed

merriam-webster

I also accept Pro's definition but find it's incomplete, it's part of belief, not the entire thing. He's referring to the feeling associated with belief, not the entirety of what believing is.

It is essential to realise that belief is not solely a feeling, it is also confidence in the truth-status of what is believed in. Once has to intellectually hold something as true. This is why 'choose to believe' is one of the most gaslighting concepts ever invented.

One does not choose to believe, one believes and than may choose to maintain said belief by confirmation bias.

To believe in God's existence is impossible for a being that never once received any evidence towards that existence.

Let's explore what evidence actually is.

I will accept Pro's definition and offer an alternative from Google's AI:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This definition and Pro's mean that evidence is not solely physical. Evidence even is the facts, information and under Pro's definition the ideas and documents (which come under information but he added 'documents') that lead one to believe something is true.

In fact, the literal way to understand evidence is relative to belief. Since, evidence is a contingent thing. Without affecting belief in the truth or validity of something, evidence is standalone data. It is only the relevance to beliving something is true or not that makes data become evidence. This is also a 2-way relationship.

Belief does not occur without evidence. What is possible is with the exact same evidence, one person readily dismisses something as insane or a lie while the other accept it as true and valid. That does not mean that whichever of them is incorrect lacked evidence.

If I take an ant having 6 legs as evidence that all beings have 6 legs my belief would be wrong but still required evidence to ever believe it. If I take humans having hearts as proof of God and the miracle of life, even if that logical pathing does not make sense to atheists or even many theists, it still required some evidence for me to ever believe in God; in this case, it was the heart.

No matter what variant of believing in God you can come up with, belief in anything especially God requires evidence.

And yes, even believing that belief in God requires evidence itself requires evidence. That evidence is inside of what I am debating.

Round 2

2 of 2

SatanLucy

Pro #3

Con conceded that by definition, no evidence is required as no evidence is mentioned in any definitions as requirement for belief, not even in definitions he brought up.

Also, the argument of existence always coming before evidence was not challenged either.

To believe in God's existence is impossible for a being that never once received any evidence towards that existence.

My opponent basically just repeated this claim in different forms for his entire round. But the claim itself is absurd. Children believe santa exists. So if we were to follow Con logic, there is evidence santa exists. And same goes for fairies, all Gods, and basically any belief anyone ever had. However, Con never proved his claims. He just repeated his position over and over. In other words, no any proof for evidence being needed for belief. My opponent tried to change meaning of what evidence is. In other words, for him, evidence is whatever person chooses to be evidence, which even further proves evidence is arbitrary and not required.

GreatfulGoy

Con #4

Pro states:

Con conceded that by definition, no evidence is required as no evidence is mentioned in any definitions as requirement for belief, not even in definitions he brought up.

This is completely false.

I conceded only that the feeling in the Cambridge definition is a valid component of belief.

The full definition of belief includes another element; firm confidence and trust in the truth-status of what is believed.

That part is essential for belief. Let me reiterate the definitions I used:

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed

merriam-webster

You cannot possibly trust, and put confidence in a person or thing as well as accept and consider true something without some form of evidence being involved. The key is actually not primarily in the definition of belief but inside of the definition of 'evidence'.

I will now reiterate the definitions of evidence used in this debate, 1 from my opponent, the other from me:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true

The former is from Google AI which uses various sources to form its definition, the latter is from Cambridge Dictionary

These definitions do not contradict at all, they merely give 2 wording differences to an almost identical concept of what evidence is. Evidence is more than solely physical proofs, it is even information, fact and documents that would lead one to believe something.

What really secures defeat for Pro is the fact that Pro's own definition of 'evidence' tethers it to being something that verbatim quoted gives 'reason to believe that something is true'. This literally means that evidence is basically an essential component of belief.

Pro's case is incoherent in my opinion.

I did not change the definition of 'evidence' as Pro claims. Our definitions of evidence complement each other well. If anything, our definitions of belief are where the actual clash is. Pro solely defined it as 'the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true'. To me this is an incomplete definition and I fully articulated and cited 2 more complete definitions of belief from Merriam-Webster dictionary. A feeling that something is true is a part of belief but if anything you could lack that faith-feeling element and still believe something. The key to belief is the trust and confidence in something's truth-status, not solely a feeling of it being true but a cognitive assertiveness of its truth as well.

GreatfulGoy

#16

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Thank you for the decent effort vote.

By the way, I meant heart as in the organ, not the metaphor for feeling God.

However, my point was that indeed a variety of things can be seen as evidence for God.

SatanLucy

#15

--> @SomeDebatePerson

"Pro then says things existed before evidence of them, but this seems to ignore why we believe in them"

I suggest you to avoid circular logic in your vote.

topic is that we dont need a reason to believe in God. Saying that "this seems to ignore reason for belief" is circular reasoning and biased vote.

GreatfulGoy

#14

Bump

SatanLucy

#13

there goes my vote

whiteflame Global Moderator

#12

--> @SatanLucy, @fauxlaw, @GreatfulGoy

>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to have made their decision almost entirely on the basis that Con said they included the acceptance of Pro's definitions, though the line is only being partially quoted. Con said: "I also accept Pro's definition but find it's incomplete, it's part of belief, not the entire thing." Con later says he accepts a different definition and offers an alternative. If either of those function as a concession, the voter is unclear how so. Besides that, the voter only says this results in him failing "to achieve a strong rebuttal", which is unclear, and the voter doesn't analyze any arguments from Pro, which makes the need for rebuttal unclear. I get that this is chiefly a semantic debate, but the voter is still required to give some analysis of the points made by both sides. If there are concessions within the debate, particularly on the definitions, those need to be further clarified.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#11

---fauxlaw's former vote---
Voted for: pro
This debate might have been scholastically entertaining had Pro simply used the Description field in his challenge to offer definitions rather than wait to do so in his 1st round. To delay the input of definitions of keywords in the Resolve [Title] allows the opponent to suggest alternate definitions in their 1st round, which leads exactly to what this debate became: a war of definitions. The challenge is the appropriate place to offer definitions so that when the challenge is accepted, the definitions are set in stone and cannot be revised as Con tried to do, but unsuccessfully by admission to acceptance of Pro's definitions.

That said, Pro's R1 offered an argument consistent with the definitions he argued earlier in R1 relative to belief: "...things cannot require evidence in order to exist, because existence itself is not dependent on evidence." Con rebutted this argument, but unsuccessfully, mostly because Con first said, "I also accept Pro's definition..." but offered a counter definition, which only confuses his position, which therefore failed to achieve a strong rebuttal. Con should not have first said he accepts Pro's definition.

Since R2 simply devolved into further definition war, the debate really ended in R1, which Pro managed to win due to good argument sustained by the definitions.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#10

--> @GreatfulGoy

We'll take a look at it.

GreatfulGoy

--> @Kohai, @whiteflame

Pls see below

melcharaz

I cant in good faith vote on this, its more a debate over definitions.

Wether someone believes belief to be more or less than feeling and circumstantal evidence or not, doesnt really help me to decide the matter.

It seems like instigator went the truism route and refused to accept the idea of belief being more than what they declared.

GreatfulGoy

I report the vote of Fauxlaw. I do not find he sufficiently explored my arguments whatsoever, he did also not explain why me saying Pro's definition is a part of belief but not entirely what belief is, lost me the debate. He mischaracterises what I conceded.

SomeDebatePerson

This debate will be about presenting evidence for why evidence is not needed.

ChatKnight

While many beliefs are strengthened or justified by evidence, belief itself is a psychological state that can exist without formal proof. Whether evidence is required depends on the domain, the standards of justification, and the purpose of the belief.

This nuanced understanding shows belief can be evidence-based, but it is not universally dependent on evidence to exist or be meaningful.

SatanLucy

--> @Mal

that one is truism too. It is logically impossible for atheist to believe in God.

Mal

Not debatable.

Here's a nuanced topic : Atheists will NEVER be convinced of the existence of the gods of theism.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @melcharaz

You are correct. It will basically be a debate about if evidence is needed. All debates are based on some sort of evidence. This debate will not be able to function at all.

melcharaz

"Belief in God doesnt require evidence to exist"

If you are referring to the belief to not have evidence? Then this is a truism. Not a debate.

But if you mean that God doesnt require evidence to exist as he is. there is the possibility of disagreement.

Like do we need to have evidence of his omniscience to require the concept of Yahweh? Then yes, otherwise its not Yahweh, but another god.

SomeDebatePerson

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Round 1

Pro starts by suggesting that beliefs don’t need evidence to exist and gives us some definitions and examples. Pro then says things existed before evidence of them, but this seems to ignore why we believe in them. Scientists use evidence to guess what life was like before humans.

Cons fires back and says pro’s definition of belief is incomplete. Con says belief must be continual and look at the evidence to see if the belief holds up. This seems to make sense, as beliefs and opinions change over time when new data arises. Con also points out even though some people only believe in God because they feel it in their heart, their heart is essentially evidence they use to believe in God.

Round 2

Pro then claims, “Con conceded that by definition, no evidence is required as no evidence is mentioned in any definitions as requirement for belief, not even in definitions he brought up.” Con rejects this claim, and I myself see no evidence con made such a claim. Pro then goes on to say that kids believe in Santa and fairies when there is no evidence, but I personally find this weak since kids stop believing in them when they receive enough evidence that shows the contrary. It’s also just dumb to equate theism with fairy tales. Evolution, like many have admitted, is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

Cons goes on the clarify what was meant. Con shows the different definitions being used.

Summary

Ultimately, pro’s responses were too short. Pro’s only rebuttal was a completely false claim. Con was able to show that pro’s definitions were incomplete. I thought con’s mention of the heart was great evidence that even feelings are considered evidence.

Round 1

Round 2

New comment